SI: Settlements
Petr Pajdla1, and František Trampota1,✉
23 June, 2022
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Background
- 3 Settlement density
- 4 Distance to raw material sources
- 5 Density of watercourses
- 6 Terrain surrounding the settlements
- 7 Settlement ‘hierarchy’
- 8 Settlement ‘continuity’
- 9 Arrangement along natural lines
- 10 Synthesis
- 11 References
1 Department of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University, Brno
✉ Correspondence: František Trampota <trampota@phil.muni.cz>
1 Introduction
The analysis is divided into two scales:
- Pottery traditions
- Pottery groups
The study area is broadly defined as Easter part of Bohemia (abbreviated B) and Morava river catchment (M). It spans across the area of the Czech Republic and bordering regions of Austria and Slovakia.
2 Background
2.1 Pottery traditions
| Period | n |
|---|---|
| 4.9 – 4.8 k | 505 |
| 4.8 – 4.6 k | 1873 |
| 4.6 – 4.4 k | 1453 |
| 4.4 – 4.2 k | 1700 |
| 4.2 – 4.0 k | 247 |
| 4.0 – 3.8 k | 247 |
| 3.8 – 3.6 k | 467 |
| 3.6 – 3.4 k | 467 |
| 3.4 – 3.3 k | 467 |
Figure 2.1: Settlements classified by general pottery traditions across time periods.
2.2 Pottery groups
| Period | n |
|---|---|
| 4.9 – 4.8 k | 115 |
| 4.8 – 4.6 k | 448 |
| 4.6 – 4.4 k | 932 |
| 4.4 – 4.2 k | 968 |
| 4.2 – 4.0 k | 239 |
| 4.0 – 3.8 k | 85 |
| 3.8 – 3.6 k | 142 |
| 3.6 – 3.4 k | 145 |
| 3.4 – 3.3 k | 145 |
Figure 2.2: Settlements classified by pottery groups across time periods.
3 Settlement density
Settlement density is estimated using KDE. Kernel size of 4 km is used. This value is completely arbitrary but is selected because settlement clusters are nicely highlighted at this scale.
3.1 Pottery traditions
Figure 3.1: Kernel density estimation for different periods.
3.2 Pottery groups
Figure 3.2: Kernel density estimation for different periods.
4 Distance to raw material sources
4.1 Raw materials distribution
Raw material sources are defined as either points or lines. Each raw material can be identified by single or multiple simple features. If the location of source used in the Neolithic period is unknown or several sources or even modes of procurement (e. g. from river bed etc.) are possible, the most probable are included.
Minimum, mean, median and maximum distances are calculated, median is used as a result.
Figure 4.1: Distribution of raw material sources.
4.2 Distances
4.3 Settlement density against distance to raw materials
Hypothesis: In Morava river catchment settlement position is directly associated with raw material source.
We compare settlement density (KDE) with distance to chosen raw materials. There is no strong evidence that the distribution of settlements is associated with distance to any of the key raw material sources occurring in the region in any of the studied periods. There are some mild negative correlations in the period 4.8 – 4.2 k BCE for polished stone tools materials. Strongest connection is observed between given pottery groups in period 4.8 – 4.6 k BCE in case of ad/pmd/zelesice raw material sources.
Figure 4.2: KDE against distance to raw material source, Morava river catchment, pottery traditions.
| period | ad | kl | pmd | zelesice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.9 – 4.8 k | -0.2779557 | -0.1519979 | -0.2627446 | -0.2125343 |
| 4.8 – 4.6 k | -0.4456647 | -0.2051945 | -0.4184537 | -0.3143975 |
| 4.6 – 4.4 k | -0.4267910 | -0.1801657 | -0.3978168 | -0.2904494 |
| 4.4 – 4.2 k | -0.4267910 | -0.1801657 | -0.3978168 | -0.2904494 |
| 4.2 – 4.0 k | 0.0733738 | 0.2722511 | 0.1105204 | 0.1777799 |
| 4.0 – 3.8 k | 0.0733738 | 0.2722511 | 0.1105204 | 0.1777799 |
| 3.8 – 3.6 k | 0.0425043 | 0.4409246 | 0.1331351 | 0.2981868 |
| 3.6 – 3.4 k | 0.0425043 | 0.4409246 | 0.1331351 | 0.2981868 |
| 3.4 – 3.3 k | 0.0425043 | 0.4409246 | 0.1331351 | 0.2981868 |
Figure 4.3: KDE against distance to raw material source, Morava river catchment, pottery groups.
| period | ad | kl | pmd | zelesice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.9 – 4.8 k | -0.4486668 | -0.4985733 | -0.4715723 | -0.4623803 |
| 4.8 – 4.6 k | -0.7760280 | -0.6347823 | -0.7856394 | -0.7309712 |
| 4.6 – 4.4 k | -0.2861646 | 0.0355688 | -0.2388717 | -0.1247204 |
| 4.4 – 4.2 k | -0.1114515 | 0.2283682 | -0.0535195 | 0.0599216 |
| 4.2 – 4.0 k | 0.0733738 | 0.2722511 | 0.1105204 | 0.1777799 |
| 3.8 – 3.6 k | -0.2933536 | 0.0260504 | -0.2438286 | -0.1285056 |
| 3.6 – 3.4 k | 0.1108126 | 0.5362603 | 0.2075718 | 0.3842750 |
| 3.4 – 3.3 k | 0.1108126 | 0.5362603 | 0.2075718 | 0.3842750 |
4.4 RM relevant to given period and/or region
4.4.1 RM relations in general pottery traditions
4.4.1.1 Morava river catchment
Figure 4.4: Distance to RM sources, Morava river catchment, pottery traditions. RM sources relevant in given period in black, somewhat relevant RM sources in gray.
4.4.1.2 Eastern part of Bohemia
Figure 4.5: Distance to RM sources, Eastern part of Bohemia, pottery traditions. RM sources relevant in given period in black, somewhat relevant RM sources in gray.
4.4.2 RM relations in detailed pottery groups
4.4.2.1 Morava river catchment
Figure 4.6: Distance to RM sources, Morava river catchment, pottery groups. RM sources relevant in given period in black, somewhat relevant RM sources in gray.
4.4.2.2 Eastern part of Bohemia
Figure 4.7: Distance to RM sources, Eastern part of Bohemia, pottery groups. RM sources relevant in given period in black, somewhat relevant RM sources in gray.
Figure 4.8: Mean distance to relevant raw materials in pottery traditions.
Figure 4.9: Mean distance to relevant raw materials in pottery groups.
5 Density of watercourses
In settlement structure studies it is often assumed that past human settlements have some kind of a relation to the network of watercourses. Numerous problems are faced while assessing the relationship between settlements and close watercourse. Most importantly the man-made recent changes in the structure and intensity of watercourses (and landscape in general) are a major factor impairing such analysis.
Usually, the settlement - watercourse relationship is expressed in some form of a metric giving shortest distance or so. We choose an approach used to study road networks in modern urban areas (e. g. Lin et al., 2020).
Most of the input data is derived from DIBAVOD data set A01 layer (https://www.dibavod.cz/).
Density (kernel smoothed intensity) is estimated using spatstat::density.psp
function with sigma 2000 m.
6 Terrain surrounding the settlements
6.1 Slope
#> used (Mb) gc trigger (Mb) max used (Mb)
#> Ncells 4664510 249.2 7976111 426.0 7976111 426.0
#> Vcells 7640028 58.3 261451688 1994.8 310690882 2370.46.2 Exploring aspect
Aspect is calculated from the DEM, 0 means the slope is facing North, 90 East, 180 South and 270 West. The settlements are buffered by 200 meters and the median aspect is taken. The vicinity of settlements is thus of interest, not the given point.
In both Morava river drainage basin and Eastern part of Bohemia, median aspect is normally distributed.
6.3 TPI
Terrain / Topographic roughness index
7 Settlement ‘hierarchy’
Minimal distance to fortified settlements in given regions is explored.
8 Settlement ‘continuity’
Is the same location settled in the previous period?
Figure 8.1: Settlements continuity, pottery traditions.
Figure 8.2: Settlements continuity, pottery groups.
9 Arrangement along natural lines
Arrangement of settlements along natural ‘terrain’ lines or along waterways is explored.
10 Synthesis
10.1 Violin plots
10.2 Line plots
Figure 10.1: Summaries for different variables across studied periods. Solid line - mean value, wide transparent line - median value.
Figure 10.2: Summaries for different variables across studied periods. Solid line - mean value, wide transparent line - median value.
10.2.1 Pottery groups
10.3 Principal components analysis
Variable labels in PCA plots:
altitude - alt.,
cont - cont.,
dist_fenced - d. fenced,
hydro_kde - hydro.,
line_terrain - t. line,
settlements_kde - dens.,
slope ~ slope,
rm_dist_chipped - d. ch.,
line_water - w. line,
rm_dist_polished - d. pol.
10.3.1 Pottery traditions in Neolithic B and C
Figure 10.3: PCA for pottery traditions data in Neolithic B and C, PC 1-2 space.
Figure 10.4: PCA for pottery traditions data in Neolithic B and C, PC 3-4 space.
10.3.2 Pottery groups in Neolithic B vs Neolithic C
Figure 10.5: PCA for pottery groups data in Neolithic B and C, PC 1-2 space.
Figure 10.6: PCA for pottery groups data in Neolithic B and C, PC 3-4 space.
10.3.3 Pottery traditions across periods
Figure 10.7: PCA for pottery traditions data across periods, PC 1-2 space.
Figure 10.8: PCA for pottery traditions data across periods, PC 3-4 space.
10.3.4 Pottery groups across periods
Figure 10.9: PCA for pottery groups data across periods, PC 1-2 space.
